Taran, Florin‐Andrei

PURPOSE Among patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the frequency of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes and the clinical relevance of these mutations are unclear. In this study, a prospective cohort of patients with mBC was used to determine mutation rates for breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with mutations, and to assess the influence of mutations on patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS Germline DNA from 2,595 patients with mBC enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry was evaluated for mutations in cancer predisposition genes. The frequencies of mutations in known BC predisposition genes were compared with results from a prospective registry of patients with nonmetastatic BC sequenced using the same QIAseq method and with public reference controls. Associations between mutation status and tumor characteristics, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed. RESULTS Germline mutations in 12 established BC predisposition genes (including BRCA1 and BRCA2) were detected in 271 (10.4%) patients. A mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was seen in 129 patients (5.0%). BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher proportion of brain metastasis (27.1%) compared with nonmutation carriers (12.8%). Mutations were significantly enriched in PRAEGNANT patients with mBC compared with patients with nonmetastatic BC (10.4% v 6.6%, P < .01). Mutations did not significantly modify progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with mBC. CONCLUSION Multigene panel testing may be considered in all patients with mBC because of the high frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other BC predisposition genes. Although the prognosis of mutation carriers and nonmutation carriers with mBC was similar, differences observed in tumor characteristics have implications for treatment and for future studies of targeted therapies.

1048 Background: Germline BRCA1/2 ( gBRCA) mutations (mt) are some of the few actionable alterations in mBC patients. The PARP inhibitors olaparib/talazoparib are more effective than chemotherapy (ctx) in patients with a gBRCAmt and HER2 negative(-) mBC. In mBC patients the TNT-study suggested a better progression-free survival (PFS) for g BRCA-mt compared to patients with a gBRCA1/2 wildtype (wt) when treated with platinum and not with a taxane. Otherwise little is known about the prognostic effect of g BRCA1/2mt in mBC patients. Methods: PRAEGNANT (NCT02338167) is a prospective mBC registry with a focus on molecular biomarkers. Patients were eligible for this analysis if their mBC was HER2- and treated with ctx for the first time (referred to as first-line ctx). Hormone receptor (HR) positive patients had to have all hormone therapies exhausted. Mutation frequencies and their association with patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression models were built with commonly established prognostic factors and g BRCA mutation status as predictors of PFS and overall survival (OS) from first-line ctx. Results: Out of 2932 PRAEGNANT patients, 576 were HER2- and received first-line ctx. Of those 529 patients with g BRCA genotype results and follow up information could be analyzed. 24 patients (4.5%) had a g BRCAmt (11 BRCA1, 13 BRCA2). Mutation rate in HR positive patients was 3.9% (17/432) and 7.2% (7/97) in HR negative patients. Most patients received ctx either as the first treatment in the metastatic setting or after one line of hormone therapy (n=382; 72.2%). Multivariable Cox regression models showed an adjusted hazard ratio for gBRCAmt vs. gBRCAwt patients of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.43-1.15) for PFS and of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.18-0.93) for OS. Most frequent ctx treatments were taxane (52%) or capecitabine based (21%). Additionally, the prevalence of somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in this population will be presented. Conclusions: In this HER2- mBC population under ctx g BRCA mutation rates were within the expected range of about 5%. Within the analyzed population patients with a g BRCA mutation seemed to have a better OS than patients without a mutation. PFS results pointed in the same direction without statistical significance. However, with only 24 mutations replication of these results in additional cohorts is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02338167.

AbstractWe aimed to validate the prognostic association of p16 expression in ovarian high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and to explore it in other ovarian carcinoma histotypes. p16 protein expression was assessed by clinical‐grade immunohistochemistry in 6525 ovarian carcinomas including 4334 HGSC using tissue microarrays from 24 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. p16 expression patterns were interpreted as abnormal (either overexpression referred to as block expression or absence) or normal (heterogeneous). CDKN2A (which encodes p16) mRNA expression was also analyzed in a subset (n = 2280) mostly representing HGSC (n = 2010). Association of p16 expression with overall survival (OS) was determined within histotypes as was CDKN2A expression for HGSC only. p16 block expression was most frequent in HGSC (56%) but neither protein nor mRNA expression was associated with OS. However, relative to heterogeneous expression, block expression was associated with shorter OS in endometriosis‐associated carcinomas, clear cell [hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% confidence (CI) 1.47–2.77, p < 0.001] and endometrioid (HR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.30–2.75, p = 0.004), while absence was associated with shorter OS in low‐grade serous carcinomas (HR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.61–5.38, p = 0.001). Absence was most frequent in mucinous carcinoma (50%), and was not associated with OS in this histotype. The prognostic value of p16 expression is histotype‐specific and pattern dependent. We provide definitive evidence against an association of p16 expression with survival in ovarian HGSC as previously suggested. Block expression of p16 in clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma should be further validated as a prognostic marker, and absence in low‐grade serous carcinoma justifies CDK4 inhibition.